I had to read so much rubbish about the VdW.
In this and other forums are such a lot of members who claim to be intelligent and mathguys but not one of them did really think about and analyse this way to bet.
1) If we look at the distribution of two colours (R and B or H/L, or E/O) we will get 256 Variations. We can easily reduce this number:
We name the first colour to appear "1" , the other then obviously "2"
If it starts by: RRB we would note 1 1 2
If it starts by: BBR we would also note 1 1 2
So have just half of 256 variations.
2) If we check how many AP will end at which coup we get the following:
Coup 3: 1
Coup 4: 1
Coup 5: 2
Coup 6: 2
Coup 7: 3
Coup 8: 3
Coup 9: 4
Up to Coup #6 there is only 1 decision possible. From Coup #7 there might be two possible decisions to make.
3) the hitrates:
Coup #3: 24,89%
Coup #4: 12,57%
Coup #5: 18,75%
Coup #6: 12,50%
That makes a total of 68,71% hitrate with only 1 decision to make.
did anyone look at VdW like this? I don´t think so, nor read about.
Or... Maybe you just spilled the beans?
If anybody who's to gain from RT it has to be who else........ Prof winkel. :lol: I was waiting for him to post again on this topic and he does. :thumbsup: Prof winkel is da man people.
I can understand why RayManZ asked this question that's related to ProfW % above, did Priyanka explained how those numbers were derived or they're just numbers plucked from the sky intentionally thrown on the board without validation ?
Quote from: RayManZ on Feb 12, 09:23 AM 2017
No not looking for pattern ect. Stop that! That does not work...
I want to know how priyanka got these stats for all the AP's.
W â€" 256 times
L â€" 48 times
LW â€" 104 times
LL â€" 32 times
LLW â€" 36 times
LLL â€" 16 times
LLLW â€" 10 times
LLLL â€" 10 times
winkel, I am glad you mention this topic.
I thought of another way to win and would appreciate your thoughts.
An even chance can either be single or series.
If singles are appearing, then it is choppy like
R B R B R B R B R
In this case you would spin on Spin # 5
If series and singles are appearing then it could look like this
R R B B R R B B x - where x is a deadlock (could be either R or B)
If we just played the Latest Series to appear we would win in 404 of the 512 possibilities ( 78.9 %).
I had written a basic program to generate each of these 512 combinations, which I how I obtained this statistic.
I refer to RayManZ's quote as the "VdW Deception":
Since Priyanka has been found to be partly a fraud in terms of regurgitating Reddwarf's useful information about Non-Random methods - but at the same time turning them back into Random games for use with fallacious Variance Avoidance techniques - could she have also deliberately (or delusionally) misled us again with her first example on VdW?
Here, Priyanka essentially suggested playing VdW as Cycles - stopping at the first AP - aligning all bets (static) to that event. This resulted in a Win-Lose chart:
W â€" 256 times
L â€" 48 times
LW â€" 104 times
LL â€" 32 times
LLW â€" 36 times
LLL â€" 16 times
LLLW â€" 10 times
LLLL â€" 10 times
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.15 (page 2)
From only this chart she literally claimed a solution was staring us in the face! And from what I can gather - without explicitly quoting all her subsequent references - she was hinting that we reduce apples or pears by using another Variance Avoidance technique! Surprise, surprise.
In hindsight and with greater wisdom acquired since that time, I'm pretty sure that a VdW solution would take a completely different form. To understand just how bizarre the above decoy happened to be in terms of introducing a powerful Non-Random method, but at the same time presenting it in terms of a false dichotomy, we only need consider doing the same thing to Dozen Cycles: meaning we play all CL1s and CL2s, ignoring deadlocked CL3s; and based on the resulting Win-Lose chart, we would be forced to repeat the Variance Avoidance path - almost in the same vein as the aforementioned defining element fraud. Again, that's NOT how Cycles should be played - and is NOT how VdW should be played.
So I see, you all are stuck in the explanations of priyanka and you didn´t understand the math of VdW.
You didn´t understand my initial post and didn´t think about.
It seems that you are not able to follow further explanations of my idea.
by then.
That's right! We are all stupid and bow down to your superior intelligence.
Quote from: winkel on Sep 03, 08:55 AM 2017So have just half of 256 variations.
If we remove all combinations starting with 2's
We will have 256, a half from 512. Right?
By "coup" you mean sequence of n 1/2?
Hi Winkel,
Always enjoy your posts as they usually show some critical thinking.
I too have also done similar research using the % Hit Rate and the first 6 Spins of a 9 Spin cycle.
I also showed a hitrate % of about 68% for the first 6 spins.
My original thinking was that I had the HG. A 68% win rate by playing the first 6 spins of the cycle.
However, further testing showed that I failed to take into consideration the fact that you could win on the 6th coup but you may have already lost on the 3rd coup. The hitrate % while accurate for each individual coup does not take into account previous losses.
For example, you could start the cycle with BB and on 3rd coup you would bet B.
If the result was a R, you would then have BBR.
On 4th coup no bet, another B is spun so we now have BBRB.
On 5th coup no bet another B is spun so we now have BBRBB
So on 6th coup we would bet B. If you won on this coup it would generate the 12.5% hit rate but we would have broke even as we had a loss on the 3rd coup.
Unfortunately, my testing did not get the 68% hit rate by playing only the first 6 coups.
Cheers
Nick
{{{3, 1, F}, 64}, {{3, 1, T}, 64},
{{4, 1, F}, 32}, {{4, 1, T}, 32}, {{4, 2, F}, 32}, {{4, 2, T}, 32},
{{5, 1, F}, 64}, {{5, 1, T}, 64}, {{5, 2, F}, 32}, {{5, 2, T}, 32},
{{6, 1, F}, 48}, {{6, 1, T}, 48}, {{6, 2, F}, 48}, {{6, 2, T}, 48},
{{7, 1, F}, 88}, {{7, 1, T}, 88}, {{7, 2, F}, 48}, {{7, 2, T}, 48},
{{8, 1, F}, 68}, {{8, 1, T}, 68}, {{8, 2, F}, 68}, {{8, 2, T}, 68},
{{9, 1, F}, 92}, {{9, 1, T}, 92}, {{9, 2, F}, 68}, {{9, 2, T}, 68}}
F ... False ... Negativ Hit = Loose
T... True .... Positive = Win
Quote from: praline on Sep 04, 11:52 AM 2017
If we remove all combinations starting with 2's
We will have 256, a half from 512. Right?
By "coup" you mean sequence of n 1/2?
coup means spin
Quote from: Nickmsi on Sep 04, 12:45 PM 2017
Hi Winkel,
I also showed a hitrate % of about 68% for the first 6 spins.
...
However, further testing showed that I failed to take into consideration the fact that you could win on the 6th coup but you may have already lost on the 3rd coup. The hitrate % while accurate for each individual coup does not take into account previous losses.
...
Cheers
Nick
Hi nick,
That is just a fact but the mistake is somewhere else.
If we have a row of
RRR RRR RRR
Most of you will only bet
- either the third R and then wait for the next cluster of 9
- either the third, then the 6th then the 9th bet.
If you have such a row of 9 indentical Colours you also have all possible 16 APs in it. But we usually don´t or can´t bet them.
Try this way: RR bet R and you have RRR
now cut off the first R:
RRR and now you have the next trigger to bet R again.
At this row of 9 R you will win 3rd, 4th, 5th. 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th bet. total of 7 wins!
Do the same after any win or loss. We need always 2 spins without any bet.
Example: RRB - stop selecting and restart with RB
next RB new spin B makes RBB , so bet B
next RBBB and win and cut off first two spins
You got: BB so bet B
and so on
That could work quite good - roulette being a 'streaky' game most times.
:)
A.
Thanks Winkel. I agree that is one of the better ways to play with VDW.
As you and Atlantis point out, it takes advantage of the streakiness of random.
For those of you who wish to see this in action, I have attached an Excel Tracker.
Every spin, the tracker looks at the last 9 spins to see if an AP can be formed. The math is the same whether you look at the last 9 spins or the next 9 spins.
Enjoy
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on Sep 04, 04:13 PM 2017
Thanks Winkel. I agree that is one of the better ways to play with VDW.
...
Every spin, the tracker looks at the last 9 spins to see if an AP can be formed. The math is the same whether you look at the last 9 spins or the next 9 spins.
Enjoy
Nick
I reduced to 6 spins to avoid the double decisions.
Betting like this is taking advantage of all the wins from:
- every row longer than 2 of the same
- every row of singles longer than 5
example and exception: RBRB > we would bet for an R. If we win we got: RBRBR in this case we don´t cut of to ....BR! To get hold of the trigger 1212x we just cut off the first spin: 12121 cut of first spin, x2121 bet for 2!
- tricky: We stop every row of wins with a loss of -1!
There is no possible progression in the win. either it kills all your wins, or you have to stop quite early. (But it is your own risk)
Just to bet with 1 unit is the most recommendable way to bet.
If you think about a Fibonacci-bet as winning progression you have to have a row longer than 11 to get better wins. You see how rare this is.
MIND THIS GAP:
What is killing us: 11 22 11 22 11 22 11 22
and: 1 22 1 22 1 22 1 22 1 22
Two possible ways to handle this:
1. Like one mentioned: Stop after 3 losses and wait for a virtual win
or
- stop after 3 losses and restart when another AP is coming up:
Example 11 22 11 212 Then start betting on 1212 1
2. For the one with a heart: Try to pick up this pattern and start betting on it.
Regarding Post #11 from this topic,
indeed that does seem to be a better way to re-track after a Win or a Loss
As i understand it can't win flat bet??
Quote from: praline on Sep 04, 07:12 PM 2017
As i understand it can't win flat bet??
If you show me a way how you can win a coinflip flatbet, then I make this a flatbetwinner.
trying to win a 50/50 game flatbet is a contradiction. (longterm)
But if you try a "hit and run", you will win flatbet. But it needs time and time and big bankroll. You should wager at least a 100unit bet.
This are about 400 spins flatbet:
The same spins with my magic wonder hero progression *lol*
Quote from: winkel on Sep 05, 04:23 AM 2017
The same spins with my magic wonder hero progression *lol*
Was this using the Power Martingale (1,3,7,15,31) which you describe here ?
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18831.msg176255#msg176255
Betting on a possible AP?
I just have one question
How is a win in five tries guaranteed
We have to choose the correct AP. Still a guess?
Quote from: winkel on Sep 05, 03:51 AM 2017
If you show me a way how you can win a coinflip flatbet, then I make this a flatbetwinner.
Sorry, i can't. I'm still searching for it.
Quote from: winkel on Sep 05, 04:23 AM 2017magic wonder hero progression
Great name for progression) ))
1. B
2. B
3. R -1
4. R
5. B -1
6. B
7. R -1
8. R -1
9. R or B = mutual
The problem with playing it in it's basic format is when you start getting consecutive games like the above
or
1. B
2. B
3. R -1
4. B
5. B
6. R -1
7. R -1
8. R or B = mutual
This can go on for a while and you can be easily down double figure units just flat betting.
Like ATI said, I don't really think it's supposed to be played like this and this info is really nothing new. Everyone was talking about it 2 years ago. It's like GUT getting regurgitated every couple of years. How's that going?
Hows things going Wiggy, still watching the woodpeckers, the plasterers to me just keep on plasterering LOL.
I looked when this started the other time and don't know if i had this right, but the gentleman who started this thread, showed me the way, through GUT.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/05/temp_849675.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/r2TL)
Spin 1&2, so no bet for spin 3
Spin 1&3, wait for spin 5,
Spin 1&4, wait for spin 7,
Spin 3&4, bet spin 5, and lose
Spin 2&5, wait for spin 8,
Spin 6 at this time unknown
Spin 5&6 bet red at 7, but spin 1&4 is bet for black at spin 7, conflict
Why i just carried on with watching trot, that the Goofs over GF don't get LMAO, cough
Quote from: Nickmsi on Sep 04, 12:45 PM 2017
My original thinking was that I had the HG. A 68% win rate by playing the first 6 spins of the cycle.
Unfortunately, my testing did not get the 68% hit rate by playing only the first 6 coups.
Cheers
Nick
No surprise there with your findings. There're so many astronomical % hit rate that's quoted on various forums, I daresay ALL of them are false. Most numbers quoted are not even logical in the first place!
Post a winning video to back such preposterous claims, plenty get hooked bypass whatever logical mind they possess to instantly believe such crap. Time, life and money lost is the damaging result. Wake up people, don't be a sucker!
There is nothing non-random about the use of VdW theorem with the game of roulette or baccarat. Zero, zilch have you realised it by now ?
Priyanka's suggestion of supposed non-random play in RT is laughable, it's just plain nuts! :girl_to:
Does Nickmsi still maintain this believe that the use of VdW theorem can possibly generate non-random play that Priyanka proposed on RT thread ?
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 05, 06:22 AM 2017
Betting on a possible AP?
I just have one question
How is a win in five tries guaranteed
We have to choose the correct AP. Still a guess?
In a random game there is never a guarantee. You should know that.
If you had read my first post, you would have seen, that I only go for 6 spins. so there are no 5 tries possible.
Quote from: wiggy on Sep 05, 07:10 AM 2017
1. B
2. B
3. R -1
4. R
5. B -1
6. B
7. R -1
8. R -1
9. R or B = mutual
The problem with playing it in it's basic format is when you start getting consecutive games like the above
or
1. B
2. B
3. R -1
4. B
5. B
6. R -1
7. R -1
8. R or B = mutual
This can go on for a while and you can be easily down double figure units just flat betting.
Like ATI said, I don't really think it's supposed to be played like this and this info is really nothing new. Everyone was talking about it 2 years ago. It's like GUT getting regurgitated every couple of years. How's that going?
your first reply to this thread was more accurate, describing your intelligence.
I said max. 6 spins and after a loss restart with last two spins:
restart at spin 6 with
6. B
7. R -1
8. R -1 no mutual bet for spin 9!!!!!! It is only saying "R"
9. R or B = mutual
same for second example: no mutual bet for spin 8
It's not going to guarantee anything though is it?
You are still 50/50 as to if R or B comes on spin 9. How does doing it your way change the odds in our favour.
Thanks.
Quote from: wiggy on Sep 05, 10:30 AM 2017
It's not going to guarantee anything though is it?
You are still 50/50 as to if R or B comes on spin 9. How does doing it your way change the odds in our favour.
Thanks.
I'm all ears. Prof Winkel ?
Quote from: wiggy on Sep 05, 10:30 AM 2017
It's not going to guarantee anything though is it?
Do you have such a betselection? No? Then shut up!
You are still 50/50 as to if R or B comes on spin 9. How does doing it your way change the odds in our favour.
Thanks.
Again: What are you talking about spin 9? I don´t recommend to wait till spin 9!
You can´t change odds! You only can play intelligent. So this is nothing for you!
Quote from: cht on Sep 05, 10:34 AM 2017
I'm all ears. Prof Winkel ?
Are you also "all eyes? Did you read? Did you understand what van der Waerden proofed?
He said: it is 100% guaranteed, that in a row of 9 randomly sorted 2 colours there is at least 1 AP.
I say: In a row of 6 there is one AP with a probability of 68,71%
I try to find this one AP!
LoL....so you are spouting nonsense which offers no advantage over someone just walking up to the table and playing R or B.
You can carve it up anyway you like. Pretend the 9th spin is now the 4th spin in your example if you like. ::)
Pretty funny really.
Quote from: winkel on Sep 05, 10:50 AM 2017
Are you also "all eyes? Did you read? Did you understand what van der Waerden proofed?
He said: it is 100% guaranteed, that in a row of 9 randomly sorted 2 colours there is at least 1 AP.
I say: In a row of 6 there is one AP with a probability of 68,71%
I try to find this one AP!
I understand Van der Waerden's theorem properly.
I do understand what you say about "In a row of 6 there is one AP with a probability of 68,71%"
Nothing wrong with what you said.
Does this rolling method you proposed inside this row of 6 give an edge ?
Is there any particular reason for it to be winning bets itlr ?
Tbh I tested VdW in similar segregated fashion for the same reason, 3-6row, 7-9row.
link:s://i.gyazo.com/89cf65ba2ab2c172e2dda6c1aba5bd07.png
I am trying to wrap my head around it
But to me it seems that even in perfect circumstances the next spin can be anything. So I'm not sure how this helps
If someone could help me understand
Maybe I'm just missing a piece of this puzzle.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 05, 11:11 AM 2017
I am trying to wrap my head around it
But to me it seems that even in perfect circumstances the next spin can be anything. So I'm not sure how this helps
If someone could help me understand
Maybe I'm just missing a piece of this puzzle.
I haven't attempted or tested what winkel is proposing but my reply is to everyone that say what's the point of tracking it a different way
I'll use notto for example since he plays heavy using gut/ktf/which ever name it has now, I lost track sorry
Notto plays based on a lot of tested data and based on the averages of what happens most and with that information they found something that works for them
Non random games will contain the same data as a random game and yes nothing changes! Odds don't change!
What you need to understand is the view!! The data is being tracked to see something else. Non random has it's on math based on the tracking. This data can help because the swings are shorter
The environment on which you decide to bet is more controlled. This new data has its own strengths and weaknesses; it's on limits!
This is stage 1! Sorry to tell you, in stage 1 you have no game and you will not win with this information alone.
So for everyone complaining about random thoughts and non random, YOU ARE RIGHT! Your still in the same place.
Only difference now is that you have something with less variance with very good averages on the whole data set.
btw if you learned anything from Pri videos when she played her bets seemed mechanical but they were always CHANGING!
Here is a tip for everyone. Any bet that stays the same will lose!
I have a lot of respect for Prof Winkel. His ideas helped me design a flatbet game that has a 66+% winrate on a 2 to 1 payout. My 1st real money test quadrupled the initial balance with a whopping 80% winrate over 1200 spins, small online account though. I owe it to him.
I've been reading silently ProfW on this VdW theorem and if anyone on this board who's to truly unravel the real edge, it's got to be him. A lot of other claims to me is hotair BS by my standards. I know I'm on almost the same page with him and this is my 2nd and final project with this roulette forum, I'm done. I hope he contributes more...
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Sep 05, 12:03 PM 2017
Only difference now is that you have something with less variance with very good averages on the whole data set.
I never found any Non-Random bet selection with less variance or less wild swings. Are you sure you have found this yourself or are you just repeating the myth?
What’s the big difference between a Non Random and a Random system?
A Random system is subject to the wild swings of variance.
A Non Random system is more stable and subject to less variance.
I tested3 sessions of 3,000 spin each for both a Random system, FTL (Follow The Last) and a Non Random VDW. Flat betting graphs attached.
Notice the results for FTL had a high of +34 and a low of -122 (a 156 swing). It had an overall loss of -121.
The 2nd picture (VDW Stability had a high of 49 and a low of -44 (a swing of 93, notice the symmetry) and ended up +28 units.
Which system would require a lower bankroll?
Which system would be safer to add a progression to?
Which system do you think has a better chance of ending up in profit?
Remember this is only for No Zero or baccarat. I have not yet finished testing with a SZ table.
Cheers
Nick
to wiggy
So you had some good laughs on here? OK! You can leave us alone now till you found something by yourself that fits your requirements. We will then come over and will have our laughs.
Quote from: cht on Sep 05, 11:10 AM 2017
Does this rolling method you proposed inside this row of 6 give an edge ?
Is there any particular reason for it to be winning bets itlr ?
I´m not here to find edges (there not such things in a game with negativ odds) I just show ways to bet and win if you also use your brain.
Quote from: Nickmsi on Sep 05, 01:42 PM 2017
What’s the big difference between a Non Random and a Random system?
A Random system is subject to the wild swings of variance.
A Non Random system is more stable and subject to less variance.
I tested3 sessions of 3,000 spin each for both a Random system, FTL (Follow The Last) and a Non Random VDW. Flat betting graphs attached.
Notice the results for FTL had a high of +34 and a low of -122 (a 156 swing). It had an overall loss of -121.
The 2nd picture (VDW Stability had a high of 49 and a low of -44 (a swing of 93, notice the symmetry) and ended up +28 units.
Which system would require a lower bankroll?
Which system would be safer to add a progression to?
Which system do you think has a better chance of ending up in profit?
Remember this is only for No Zero or baccarat. I have not yet finished testing with a SZ table.
Cheers
Nick
Do the total bets 2900 for FTL and 1700 VdW in any way contribute to the difference in swing ?
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 05, 11:11 AM 2017
But to me it seems that even in perfect circumstances the next spin can be anything.
You don´t know this: It is the nature of a random game!
Ok then there is a piece to this I don't get
Did any of you tried to find a relation between Tic-tac-toe game and vdw???
In this game we win if we have three X or O in arithmetic progression. And here comes the most interesting part....
We have "9" cells in this game!
Quote from: praline on Sep 05, 02:13 PM 2017
Did any of you tried to find a relation between Tic-tac-toe game and vdw???
In this game we win if we have three X or O in arithmetic progression. And here comes the most interesting part....
We have "9" cells in this game!
You mean sort of like:
r r b
r r b
b b r
the diagonal r-r-r wins!
There can be stalemates though!
A.
I also have alot of respect for winkel. He keeps posting ideas to help us, even though he is frequently attacked by other members. Thank You
MoneyT101, I keep struggling to find the answer.
Perhaps you are using something not yet mentioned in this topic, like the Friend & Strangers Theorem
link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem_on_friends_and_strangers
Yes. the difference is that for example you can't win with 234 or 678 etc..
1. 2. 3
4. 5. 6.
7. 8. 9.
Also it's an extremely easy way to track APs.
I wanna give it a try but I'm trying to figure it out...
I'm not knocking it
I just don't fully understand it
But it seems it's still a guessing game.
My question is how does this help?
Can someone answer this question without getting all crazy.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 05, 06:09 PM 2017
I'm not knocking it
I just don't fully understand it
But it seems it's still a guessing game.
My question is how does this help?
Can someone answer this question without getting all crazy.
Rich,
From all that I have read and seen so far, it remains essentially a guessing game -- B vs R, etc, etc.
Yes, according to the VDW theorem (as applied to roulette), there should be at least one complete AP in a set of 9 spins. But, frequently, in order to fulfill the above requirement, you will need to bet on both Band R -- because either can complete the AP.
Then what do you do -- other than taking a guess?
And, yes, you will find people (the usual familiar culprits) throwing out clues and hints (and the accompanying condescending statements), but you won't find any definitive answer as to how to take the guessing element out of the equation.
Why?
Because these individuals don't have the answers themselves. You will just be given the run around (along with gratuitous insults thrown in your direction).
Ok. Then it's as good as anything.
so if i understand you correctly then only one of the 2 can have a remaining AP to be sure.....
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 05, 07:11 PM 2017
so if i understand you correctly then only one of the 2 can have a remaining AP to be sure.....
Yes, that's when you have a stalemate (a mutual bet) -- either B or R can complete the arithmetic progression.
On other occasions, there is a clear-cut choice -- take for example the following two scenarios:
1. Let's say the first four spins of a set are R R B B -- then to complete the possible 3 4 5 arithmetic progression at spin no. 5, you have to bet on B.
Here the answer is clear (bet on B), but that does NOT mean the the ball and the wheel are going to cooperate with you. They don't have any obligation to do so ! They can produce an R. You lose!
2. Another example: If you have 4 spins such as B R B B, then you have two possible APs that can be completed with the next spin. The 1 3 5 and the 3 4 5 -- and both can be completed with B. The choice, again, is clear-cut.
But, again, the ball and the wheel have NO obligation to cooperate with you -- they can produce an R. You lose!
The VDW theorem as applied to roulette is still a 50-50 game. Actually, it is worse -- if you include the 0/00 ! :twisted: :twisted:
RBR BRR RBB
123 456 789
First spin â€" B
Next â€" R
An arithmetic progression of 1,2,3 is not possible.
Next â€" R
An arithmetic progression of 2,3,4 is possible. So we play as per our template to prove the theorem and play R.
Alas â€" B. A loss.
No arithmetic progressions possible at this time (1,2,3../ 2,3,4…./3,4,5…/, 1,3,5/ 2,4,6)
Next â€" B
Only possible progression is 4,5,6 to become BBB. So we play B.
Next â€" R. A loss.
Now only possible progression is 1, 4, 7 to become BBB. So we play B.
Next â€" B. A win.
The outcome is LLW
Lets play another game.
First spin â€" R
Second â€" B
Third â€" R
Fourth â€" B
We could get 1,3,5 to be RRR.
Oh my god â€" B. Lost
Two progressions possible now. 2,4,6 or 4,5,6. Both point to BBB
Bingo â€" B. Won
Outcome is LW
One final game...
First spin â€" B
Second â€" R
Third â€" B
Fourth â€" R
We could get 1,3,5 to be BBB
Awesome â€" B. Won.
Outcome is W.
Quote from: Andre Chass on Sep 05, 08:20 PM 2017
Only possible progression is 4,5,6 to become BBB. So we play B.
Next â€" R. A loss.
Now only possible progression is 1, 4, 7 to become BBB. So we play B.
Next â€" B. A win.
Both point to BBB
We could get 1,3,5 to be BBB
As I stated in my previous post, the VDW may prescribe one particular bet.
But at the end of the day, what matters is what the ball and the wheel decide to do.
And the ball and the wheel may collude to produce the exact opposite result.
VDW is totally helpless to prevent that physical outcome.
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Sep 05, 08:10 PM 2017
Yes, that's when you have a stalemate (a mutual bet) -- either B or R can complete the arithmetic progression.
On other occasions, there is a clear-cut choice -- take for example the following two scenarios:
1. Let's say the first four spins of a set are R R B B -- then to complete the possible 3 4 5 arithmetic progression at spin no. 5, you have to bet on B.
Here the answer is clear (bet on B), but that does NOT mean the the ball and the wheel are going to cooperate with you. They don't have any obligation to do so ! They can produce an R. You lose!
2. Another example: If you have 4 spins such as B R B B, then you have two possible APs that can be completed with the next spin. The 1 3 5 and the 3 4 5 -- and both can be completed with B. The choice, again, is clear-cut.
But, again, the ball and the wheel have NO obligation to cooperate with you -- they can produce an R. You lose!
The VDW theorem as applied to roulette is still a 50-50 game. Actually, it is worse -- if you include the 0/00 ! :twisted: :twisted:
DoctorSudoku is correct. That's why I stated earlier that the use of VdW theorem in roulette and baccarat gameplay does not in any way change a random game to non-random that Priyanka proposed in RT thread.
People got hooked to this fallacy more due to the few magical winning videos.They harp mindlessly about VdW non-random game when simple logic tells us that's not the case.
Priyanka did not propose just VdW theorem for non-random play, to be clear. If you read carefully the entire proposal, the fallacious claims are plenty but I will not go into the details.
.
It's like a plain bet...
The difference is that you further extend your enjoyment. You take more to win or it takes longer to lose.
It's like V.i.a.g.ra...
The truth is that nobody can change the odds...
All the systems is only in our heads...
But we have fun playing using systems
I share the real fun of 2 stories that happened at the local b&m casino few days ago.
Case 1:
Streak of 9bankers followed by 17players. The crowd punted table max of 30k euro every hand from the second player streak onwards.
Case 2:
The guy sitted next to me won net 7k followed by 10k euro in 2 roulette spins and then he left.
That's the real fun guys.
Quote from: stringbeanpc on Sep 05, 02:45 PM 2017
MoneyT101, I keep struggling to find the answer.
Perhaps you are using something not yet mentioned in this topic, like the Friend & Strangers Theorem
link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem_on_friends_and_strangers
Which answer?
Friends and strangers theorem is interesting. What does this theorem have in common with vdw?
If you think about it: both seperate an opposite in a way
Its red or black
Your a friend or your a stranger
It's this or that!
But again vdw on its on won't help honestly. The concept of it was to show how some things can be played and take predicting out of the way.
But everyone is looking at things at face value. That's where the confusion is happening. I'm trying to help you guys move on from the problem but you aren't listening.
Pri said it needs to be evolved and or combined with something else.
So as I was writing I had an idea. Second idea I give you guys better then everything posted on the forum lmao. But maybe it can help you guys or give you other ideas. Trying to get you to move on from the one sided thinking.
Also this idea will have some form of pigeon hole and vdw.
I will post a new topic
Quote from: winkel link=topic=19357.msg181154#msg181154 date=150454
Try this way: RR bet R and you have RRR
now cut off the first R:s]R[/s]RR and now you have the next trigger to bet R again.
At this row of 9 R you will win 3rd, 4th, 5th. 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th bet. total of 7 wins!
Do the same after any win or loss. We need always 2 spins without any bet.
Example: RRB - stop selecting and restart with RB
next RB new spin B makes RBB , so bet B
next RBBB and win and cut off first two spins
You got: BB so bet B
and so on
How about using martingale and session recover with this system?
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Sep 05, 08:34 PM 2017
...
But at the end of the day, what matters is what the ball and the wheel decide to do.
And the ball and the wheel may collude to produce the exact opposite result.
VDW is totally helpless to prevent that physical outcome.
If you have in mind: Whatever I decide or vdW points me to: I will lose! Don´t play Roulette and ECs
If you have in mind: Everytime I bet Red, Black will appear: Then play Black for gods sake.
If you are afraid of the Zero: Don´t play Roulette.
If you can´t make decision, because you are always unsure and predict it will come along the other way: Take your mothers hand to be guided through life.
BTW:
I never ever talked about Random or Non-Random!
I never talked about spin 7 8 or 9.
I never promised you a rosegarden
Sorry! I regret to have started this Thread.
QuoteThe guy sitted next to me won net 7k followed by 10k euro in 2 roulette spins and then he left.
betting how many numbers..
Quote from: winkel on Sep 06, 04:05 AM 2017
BTW:
I never ever talked about Random or Non-Random!
I never talked about spin 7 8 or 9.
I never promised you a rosegarden
Sorry! I regret to have started this Thread.
It's good that you distance yourself from this random/non-random talk.
You shouldn't regret to have started this thread as you owe nobody nothing.
And the discussion and povs that followed will lead to someone out there to see things a little clearer. I gained in some way from your posts always.
Quote from: maestro on Sep 06, 04:41 AM 2017
betting how many numbers..
I don't know. I just saw a message displayed on his roulette machine that says he hit jackpot 7k & 10k, this followed by the pitboss who came over to execute the handpay protocol for such large sums.
Quote from: cht on Sep 06, 04:48 AM 2017
I don't know. I just saw a message displayed on his roulette machine that says he hit jackpot 7k & 10k, this followed by the pitboss who came over to execute the handpay protocol for such large sums.
Was it Turbo, no like old top dog he only plays at the top dog table, not touchscreen, it must be playable in the real world of roulette, not on touchscreen gents
Quote from: winkel on Sep 06, 04:05 AM 2017
BTW:
I never ever talked about Random or Non-Random!
I never talked about spin 7 8 or 9.
I never promised you a rosegarden
Sorry! I regret to have started this Thread.
It's a great topic winkel. Don't regret it. I created a new topic adding another step to your method. I'll cover what you posted here and if I'm doing something wrong, please correct me.
Again, great topic and people will appreciate it maybe years later just like GUT 😁😉
No one is saying it isn't great. But let's not get panties in a twist when people ask questions.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 05, 06:22 AM 2017
Betting on a possible AP?
I just have one question
How is a win in five tries guaranteed
We have to choose the correct AP. Still a guess?
Was this your question?
This is not a question.
It is an attack.
You know that in a random game nothing is predictable and every bet is a guess. And this is the nature of the game of Roulette.
If you don´t get it, then buy a new brain.
Oh my god. Winkel
Grow up
I'm not attacking you.
I'm sincerely asking. Anytime people ask questions you get crazy
You are so sensitive
You become a real jerk when people ask questions if you can't handle questions get off the forum!
This is how forums work. People ask
I don't fully understand this concept so I'm asking questions to wrap my head around it
I never personally attack you. But I refuse to walk on egg shells to ask you questions
I'll leave it this method probably sucks anyway.
Anytime people ask questions you curl up into a ball. Man baby.
I suggest you come back when you can handle questions.
Well we have the mysterious priyanka ..that says she can beat roulette playing dozens but wont reveal all
Im not buyin it done the backtesting
And so have others
Quote from: bigmoney on Sep 06, 08:26 AM 2017
Well we have the mysterious priyanka ..that says she can beat roulette playing dozens but wont reveal all
Im not buyin it done the backtesting
And so have others
What did you backtest?... you can backtest and look at data all day long and it means nothing if you aren't looking at the right data.
Quote from: winkel on Sep 06, 04:02 AM 2017
If you can´t make decision, because you are always unsure and predict it will come along the other way: Take your mothers hand to be guided through life.
Yes, we can all see how well your mother's hand has guided you in your roulette investigations.
Never seen someone not able to handle questions
I refuse to walk on egg shells.
Too bad!
I see that here is a hostile place.
When some people here insulting me I thought it was just me...
Quote from: Andre Chass on Sep 06, 12:13 PM 2017
I see that here is a hostile place.
When some people here insulting me I thought it was just me...
It's very simple : be an adult
Don't accuse someone of attacking you and then tell them to buy a brain
If you post on a forum you should have the mental capacity to handle questions.
I don't have tolerance for man babies.
Quote from: Nickmsi on Sep 04, 12:45 PM 2017
Hi Winkel,
Always enjoy your posts as they usually show some critical thinking.
I too have also done similar research using the % Hit Rate and the first 6 Spins of a 9 Spin cycle.
I also showed a hitrate % of about 68% for the first 6 spins.
My original thinking was that I had the HG. A 68% win rate by playing the first 6 spins of the cycle.
However, further testing showed that I failed to take into consideration the fact that you could win on the 6th coup but you may have already lost on the 3rd coup. The hitrate % while accurate for each individual coup does not take into account previous losses.
For example, you could start the cycle with BB and on 3rd coup you would bet B.
If the result was a R, you would then have BBR.
On 4th coup no bet, another B is spun so we now have BBRB.
On 5th coup no bet another B is spun so we now have BBRBB
So on 6th coup we would bet B. If you won on this coup it would generate the 12.5% hit rate but we would have broke even as we had a loss on the 3rd coup.
Unfortunately, my testing did not get the 68% hit rate by playing only the first 6 coups.
Cheers
Nick
How about using martingale.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 06, 12:38 PM 2017
It's very simple : be an adult
Don't accuse someone of attacking you and then tell them to buy a brain
If you post on a forum you should have the mental capacity to handle questions.
I don't have tolerance for man babies.
That is right.
But the other one should be able to ask valid questions.
"
I don´t understand" is no valid question.
Quote from: winkel on Sep 06, 08:05 AM 2017
Was this your question?
This is not a question.
It is an attack.
You know that in a random game nothing is predictable and every bet is a guess. And this is the nature of the game of Roulette.
If you don´t get it, then buy a new brain.
In what way was this an attack? Why are you always so curt? I think you are trying to be superior but it just comes across as down right rude.
I have always admired your knowledge, but not your people skills.
Be nice to people. It feels good.
And before you do your usual "why are you only picking on me?", I am acting on a "report to moderator" complaint.
If the question doesn't meet his criteria as a good question he goes into insult mode
Would be nice if that didn't happen.
Quote from: Turner on Sep 06, 04:39 PM 2017
In what way was this an attack? Why are you always so curt? I think you are trying to be superior but it just comes across as down right rude.
I have always admired your knowledge, but not your people skills.
Be nice to people. It feels good.
People who is
people?
I always start my topics friendly. I never attacked anybody for what he was contributing.
But I remember that I was attacked always from my first post on.
Even today I´m attacked to have contributed my ideas of "GUT". Who is to blame me for my thin skin?
Everyone who asked me questions got a a friendly answer.
But nowadays if a question sounds to me like: "Proof your shit" I simply explode.
I am the result of the behaviour "people" did to me.
So don´t complain.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 06, 04:45 PM 2017
If the question doesn't meet his criteria as a good question he goes into insult mode
Would be nice if that didn't happen.
Thanks Rich, lets leave it at that...please
Quote from: winkel on Sep 06, 04:46 PM 2017So don´t complain.
Im not complaining. I couldnt give a shit. I act on reported posts.
You are curt a lot, and I say nothing, because, as I said, I dont give a shit...its your bad
I just reply to reported posts and when things get out of hand.
This wasnt out of hand by any stretch of the imagination, just reported
Next Try:
min 1 AP in a cluster of 9
The possible 512 clusters of 9 spins can be created this way: We take the possible minimum length of an AP: 1 2 3
RRR
RRB
RBB
RBR
BBB
BBR
BRR
BRB
all clusters of 9 are combinations of these 8 clusters of 3! ( 8 x 8 x 8 = 512)
My notation with 1 and 2: 4 Clusters
1 1 1 (is RRR and BBB)
1 1 2 (is BBR and RRB)
1 2 1 (is RBR and BRB)
1 2 2 (is RBB and BRR)
so the first creation of the next clustersize of 6 is: 16 clusters
1 1 1 + 1 1 1
1 1 1 + 1 1 2
1 1 1 + 1 2 1
1 1 1 + 1 2 2
---
1 1 2 + 1 1 1
1 1 2 + 1 1 2
1 1 2 + 1 2 1
1 1 2 + 1 2 2
---
1 2 1 + 1 1 1
1 2 1 + 1 1 2
1 2 1 + 1 2 1
1 2 1 + 1 2 2
---
1 2 2 + 1 1 1
1 2 2 + 1 1 2
1 2 2 + 1 2 1
1 2 2 + 1 2 2
next would be: 64 clusters:
1 1 1 + 1 1 1 + 1 1 1
1 1 1 + 1 1 2 + 1 1 1
1 1 1 + 1 2 1 + 1 1 1
1 1 1 + 1 2 2 + 1 1 1
---
and so on
lets take my cluster of 6:
1 1 1 + 1 1 1 = 4 wins
1 1 1 + 1 1 2 = 3 wins 1 loss
1 1 1 + 1 2 1 = 2 wins 1 loss
1 1 1 + 1 2 2 = 2 wins 1 loss total 11 wins + 3 losses + some no AP as trigger
---
1 1 2 + 1 1 1 = 1 loss 1 win
1 1 2 + 1 1 2 = 2 loss
1 1 2 + 1 2 1 = 1 loss
1 1 2 + 1 2 2 = 1 loss total 5 losses 1 win
---
1 2 1 + 1 1 1 = 2 win
1 2 1 + 1 1 2 = 1 win 1 loss
1 2 1 + 1 2 1 = 1 loss
1 2 1 + 1 2 2 = 1 loss total 3 win 3 losses
---
1 2 2 + 1 1 1 = 1 loss 1 win
1 2 2 + 1 1 2 = 1 loss 1 win
1 2 2 + 1 2 1 = 1 loss
1 2 2 + 1 2 2 = 1 loss total 4 losses 2 win
17 wins + 15 losses!!!! and some no AP as Trigger
How to handle the Zero
We can handle the Zero as just as the other colour. That means: The first coulour is always named "1"
If vdW creates a Sequence there is no argument that there have to be the same number of both colours
So we can have 18 of colour "1" and 19 of colur "2"
Startsequences: basic
0 as the first coup - just ignore and restart
1 0 wait or possible notation 1 2
1 1 0 take loss and restart or take (half) loss and note 1 1 2
Starsequences: extended
1 2 1 for a possbile AP we expect a 2 but a 0 hits. So Zero is "not 2" but "1": Notation 1 2 1 1
1 2 1 2 for a possbile AP we expect a 1 but a 0 hits. So Zero is "not 1" but "2": Notation 1 2 1 2 2
short: If we see any AP creating itself we can have an expectation. Every Zero is to note as the opposite of the expected colur.
extended Rule:
We see 1 2 1 ... we can take the chance of a creation of AP 1 3 5. So we start betting 2 and then 1 and then 2 again.
This test is complete month of August Spielbank Duisburg Germany.
Every every table!
3 variations are tested simultanously
A) single bet on first possible AP. win or loss = run away.
B) two bets on first possible Ap and a possible repeat of another AP
C) target 1 unit - progression PowerMartingale. Stop after 3 losses - wait for a virtual win - restart with next prog-step.
every day all tables made up 356 games in each version.
results A)
units bet 356
result -25 units
Rendite -6,88%
results B)
units bet 712
result -8 units
Rendite -1,12%
results C)
units bet 3038 units
result + 356 units
Rendite 23,42%
hello professor winkel
can you please explain me how to use your cluster in order to win ?
if we have BBBRRR 111+111 but we have only 2 wins and not 4
how to handle that ?
when we enter the game /at what stage
how you wouldplay this sequence 18 21 34 33 26 9 15 26 6 we began to play after 18 21 for the win at 34?
as there is 579 and 789 as other possible AP
thanks professor and hello from France
Quote from: roulettefan on Sep 08, 03:02 PM 2017
hello professor winkel
can you please explain me how to use your cluster in order to win ?
if we have BBBRRR 111+111 but we have only 2 wins and not 4
how to handle that ?
when we enter the game /at what stage
how you wouldplay this sequence 18 21 34 33 26 9 15 26 6 we began to play after 18 21 for the win at 34?
as there is 579 and 789 as other possible AP
thanks professor and hello from France
with BBBBBB we have 4 wins
BB bet B note 11 to bet 1
B|BB win and bet B note 111 to bet 1
BBR loss -1 note 112 wait
B|BR no bet note 12
BRR bet on R note 1 2 2
BRRR win bet on R again note 1 2 2 2
BR|RR
-1 + 2 = 1
-1 + 0 = 0
-3 + 6 = 3 units won
18 21 34 33 26 9 15 26 6
R R R B B R B B B
RR bet R 1unit
RRR win 1 cut off
R|RR bet R 1 unit
RRB loss no bet cut off
R|RBB bet B 3units
R|BBR loss no bet cut off
B|BRB no bet
B| RBB bet 7 units on B
R|BBB win und bet on B 1 unit
bet and results: +1 -1 -3 +7 = +4units
roulettefan,
If I understand correctly, winkel does NOT play spins 7,8 or 9, therefore ignore those and plays only spins 1 to 6 by resetting the vdw AFTER either a Win or a Loss.
This is how I think your example could be played.
18 R
21 R
34 R W (reset vdw now RR bet R)
33 B L (reset vdw now RB no bet)
26 B
9 R L (reset vdw now BR no bet)
15 B
26 B
6 B W (win on both 345 & 135 (both indicate B), reset vdw now BB)
Winkel please correct me if this is wrong
Quote from: winkel on Sep 08, 02:55 PM 2017
This test is complete month of August Spielbank Duisburg Germany.
Every every table!
3 variations are tested simultanously
A) single bet on first possible AP. win or loss = run away.
B) two bets on first possible Ap and a possible repeat of another AP
C) target 1 unit - progression PowerMartingale. Stop after 3 losses - wait for a virtual win - restart with next prog-step.
every day all tables made up 356 games in each version.
results A)
units bet 356
result -25 units
Rendite -6,88%
results B)
units bet 712
result -8 units
Rendite -1,12%
results C)
units bet 3038 units
result + 356 units
Rendite 23,42%
Mr Winkel,
I did not understand your tested.
What you mean is that you only get profit with your system using power martingale?
Quote from: Andre Chass on Sep 08, 09:17 PM 2017
Mr Winkel,
I did not understand your tested.
What you mean is that you only get profit with your system using power martingale?
What don´t you understand?
I just tested 3 variations. One was my preferred Prog.
You can easily test any other Prog you like.
I didn´t say it only wins with PMG.
The fear of PMG is a contradiction.
If I play Martingale, so I am aware to risk e.g. 2048 units (to win 1 unit)
If I play PMG, so I am aware to risk e,g, 2047 units to win 11 units.
It is just 1 (one) step of Prog missing!It is like the St.Petersberg-Paradoxon
Quote from: winkel on Sep 09, 03:10 AM 2017
You can easily test any other Prog you like.
I didn´t say it only wins with PMG.
I have tried it with mild progression the way winkel showed (streak method on R/B ec using last 2 results)
I play it flat until 3 LIAR, then increase; but you could also try "best of 5" prog.
It is winning alright for me. :)
A.
GOOD FOR YOU atlantis
Prof, do we really need to be thinking about all these math formulars, that are in the world, when we know when you start to play theres 37 0x's coming.
In one explanation the law of large #'s is mentioned, so when a game starts, whats the larger group.
GUT, 1st class method, do we need any more, even if that fellow, was confused or who ever, said if you bet the same crossing, you'd lose, but how would you be betting the same crossing all the time, so as long as your games are different, then if one understands how get to the crossing, whats the problem.
Sorry it's bit of topic
Quote from: nottophammer on Sep 09, 05:59 AM 2017
GOOD FOR YOU atlantis
Prof, do we really need to be thinking about all these math formulars, that are in the world, when we know when you start to play theres 37 0x's coming.
In one explanation the law of large #'s is mentioned, so when a game starts, whats the larger group.
GUT, 1st class method, do we need any more, even if that fellow, was confused or who ever, said if you bet the same crossing, you'd lose, but how would you be betting the same crossing all the time, so as long as your games are different, then if one understands how get to the crossing, whats the problem.
Sorry it's bit of topic
If I hadn´t known Kolmogoroff or Markov and others, I wouldn´t had found the GUT-Strategie.
If I would explain the crossing question, you should know Kolmogoroff and Markov to understand.
Prof it's to late for me my math is poor, but i see the trot, your top man, let the negative shit fly by ya, you know what to do so just keep doing it.
Difference between this presented system and Follow Second Last Decision, please?
If RR, bet R
If RB bet R
The above loses to Zero and House Limit (long runs of RRBBRRBB or BBRRBBRR kill the progression)
This presented system looks like the variation with which we bet If RR bet R. If RB, we don´t bet. The goal is to half the chances of losing, but it also halves the chances of winning. So, If RB bet R, If RR don´t bet has identical number of chances of winning and losing.
Winkel, you posted your statistics for RR bet R. or 11, bet 1.
I *bet* that for RB bet R, or 12 bet 1, the statistics will be identical.
Thanks.
Quote from: psimoes on Sep 10, 02:42 PM 2017
Difference between this presented system and Follow Second Last Decision, please?
If RR, bet R
If RB bet R
The above loses to Zero and House Limit (long runs of RRBBRRBB or BBRRBBRR kill the progression)
This presented system looks like the variation with which we bet If RR bet R. If RB, we don´t bet. The goal is to half the chances of losing, but it also halves the chances of winning. So, If RB bet R, If RR don´t bet has identical number of chances of winning and losing.
Winkel, you posted your statistics for RR bet R. or 11, bet 1.
I *bet* that for RB bet R, or 12 bet 1, the statistics will be identical.
Thanks.
Nice post. I've read somewhere that probability is 78%.
Quote from: psimoes on Sep 10, 02:42 PM 2017
Difference between this presented system and Follow Second Last Decision, please?
vdW also follows 3rd and 4th last decision
...
The above loses to Zero and House Limit (long runs of RRBBRRBB or BBRRBBRR kill the progression)
It has to happen that RRBB.... appears 10 times in a row. And we stop after 3 losses by these doubles.
This presented system looks like the variation with which we bet If RR bet R. If RB, we don´t bet. The goal is to half the chances of losing, but it also halves the chances of winning. So, If RB bet R, If RR don´t bet has identical number of chances of winning and losing.
Yes it looks like, but ist isn´t.
Winkel, you posted your statistics for RR bet R. or 11, bet 1.
I *bet* that for RB bet R, or 12 bet 1, the statistics will be identical.
And we pick up this 12121 and bet on it (AP 1 3 5 or 2 4 6)
Thanks.
that´s it!
Quote from: winkel on Sep 10, 03:05 PM 2017It has to happen that RRBB.... appears 10 times in a row. And we stop after 3 losses by these doubles.
I don´t know how to say it without looking like an attack, but doesn´t that sound like gambler´s fallacy to you? 3L StopLoss, wait for a Virtual Win... no matter how well thought-out the system is and the solid theory behind it still don´t guarantee a second bad run and a third won´t follow...
Like with other clever and not so clever systems out there, you will eventually win, until you inevitably lose it all. You know that.
Quote from: psimoes on Sep 10, 05:15 PM 2017
I don´t know how to say it without looking like an attack, but doesn´t that sound like gambler´s fallacy to you? 3L StopLoss, wait for a Virtual Win... no matter how well thought-out the system is and the solid theory behind it still don´t guarantee a second bad run and a third won´t follow...
Like with other clever and not so clever systems out there, you will eventually win, until you inevitably lose it all. You know that.
It is nothing but a guess in the end.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 10, 05:17 PM 2017
It is nothing but a guess in the end.
Ya, although there´s merit in trying to use six spins only to avoid the double decisions that form the APs, the spins are always rolling. That vdW doesn´t give a s**t if you´re playing for six spins or nine. When it appears that R and only R HAS TO hit, B hits instead, you then count the last nine spins, and voilá an AP has just formed and you didn´t bet on it. vdW is useless if you count on it to win, it always stabs you in the back.
Sorry to say this vdW thing is just bollox.
Quote from: psimoes on Sep 10, 05:35 PM 2017
Ya, although there´s merit in trying to use six spins only to avoid the double decisions that form the APs, the spins are always rolling. That vdW doesn´t give a s**t if you´re playing for six spins or nine. When it appears that R and only R HAS TO hit, B hits instead, you then count the last nine spins, and voilá an AP has just formed and you didn´t bet on it. vdW is useless if you count on it to win, it always stabs you in the back.
Sorry to say this vdW thing is just bollox.
I agree
VdW in and of itself isn't bollox but for roulette it has no advantage
It is the same as guessing R or B every spin.
I am afraid we are being fed trash.
From falkor to winkel. None of this helps in roulette.
Quote from: psimoes on Sep 10, 05:35 PM 2017
Sorry to say this vdW thing is just bollox.
I can understand why some of you guys think that....but....VdW doesn't just have to be an EC thing. You could be betting any location and use the VdW to help. Suppose you were betting just a few streets and used streets 1-6 as low and 7-12 as high. Now you have a bit more leeway to work with and don't have to win every other spin. I like to use it in both it's original form and a few different variations. If something doesn't work to your liking.....fix it until it does work or just drop it.
EC, dozens, streets, double streets, it´s all the same illusion, my friends. Just give it time, you will see. Nothing helps with Roulette. Nada!
I´m out. Good luck to all.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 10, 05:47 PM 2017
I agree
VdW in and of itself isn't bollox but for roulette it has no advantage
It is the same as guessing R or B every spin.
I am afraid we are being fed trash.From falkor to winkel. None of this helps in roulette.
Priyanka's name needs to be added to that list. In recent years, she has been one of the biggest "baiters" on this forum with her seductive clues and hints about converting random outcomes into non-random outcomes and (supposedly) profiting from them.
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Sep 10, 06:18 PM 2017
Priyanka's name needs to be added to that list. In recent years, she has been one of the biggest "baiters" on this forum with her seductive clues and hints about converting random outcomes into non-random outcomes and (supposedly) profiting from them.
I've been around awhile
I lurked for a while as well
I admit I have made some pretty stupid strategies in the past
one thing I learned is that there is NO CHANGING THE HOUSE EDGE. it is impossible
sure, we can create systems and clever ways to play. I am a firm believer not all systems are created equal. Many systems are better than others
but over the years it is clear to see who the baiters are, who the bullshit artists are...there are plenty here
You can play vdw or any fancy way you would like, at the end of the day its the same as guessing
prove me wrong, show me the millions.....falkor, winkel, even caleb who claims he plays AP, SHOW ME THE MANSION YOU GO HOME TO?!?!?!
(link:s://media.giphy.com/media/srTYyZ1BjBtGU/giphy.gif)
Let's give a break to the guys. Many here are trying at least a small advantage against roulette.
I know it's practically impossible to win long term, but...
Rather than criticize them, let's at least thank their for the effort.
What a lack of kindness here!
I totally support system creation
And a collaboration of minds
But to talk in riddles, pretend you have something special, and dodge around questions, is something that should receive zero tolerance!
P.s. You are betting 1200 to win 150. Eventually you will lose so be careful!
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 10, 08:59 PM 2017
P.s. You are betting 1200 to win 150. Eventually you will lose so be careful!
Yes, and I made 1.350,00 profit until now.
I know the day will come.
Quote from: Andre Chass on Sep 10, 09:23 PM 2017
Yes, and I made 1.350,00 profit until now.
I know the day will come.
I mean 1.500,00
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 10, 08:59 PM 2017
I totally support system creation
And a collaboration of minds
But to talk in riddles, pretend you have something special, and dodge around questions, is something that should receive zero tolerance!
P.s. You are betting 1200 to win 150. Eventually you will lose so be careful!
Winkel does not fall into this infamous group, he was explicitly clear enough with his posts, whether you agree with him or not is another matter.
The APers are just as bad if not worse yet they get away with the same thing.
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Sep 10, 06:18 PM 2017
Priyanka's name needs to be added to that list. In recent years, she has been one of the biggest "baiters" on this forum with her seductive clues and hints about converting random outcomes into non-random outcomes and (supposedly) profiting from them.
For the last time, there's no such thing as non-random outcomes. Drop that silly idea!
Quote from: cht on Sep 10, 11:37 PM 2017
For the last time, there's no such thing as non-random outcomes. Drop that silly idea!
I do NOT believe in non-random outcomes in a random game like roulette (as long as no biased wheels are involved).
I alluded to Priyanka's belief in them in my previous post -- so maybe you should poignantly express your irritation and/or reservations about this issue directly to her.
Just backtesting this ...on my version 1 looking good although ive lost a couple of banks its turning a profit ....
More finetuning required to make it more selective and make it a real cash cow .....IM EXCITED
Nothing is ever truly random. It doesn't mean you can realistically change your odds.
Quote from: Andre Chass on Sep 10, 09:29 PM 2017
I mean 1.500,00
You said this is rubbish und you won´t follow it.
So why don´t you trash one of your own 3 vdw-Threads?
Quote from: Steve on Sep 11, 08:27 AM 2017
Nothing is ever truly random. It doesn't mean you can realistically change your odds.
O my God. I never said this would change the odds, did I?
1. Relax. I wasn't talking to you.
2. If you claim to have a winning system, then you are claiming to change odds.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 11, 08:47 AM 2017
...
2. If you claim to have a winning system, then you are claiming to change odds.
Not neccessarily! But that´s a matter of conviction
I agree with winkel on that
You don't have to change the odds to have a winning system.
It's claiming to change odds that is BS
Agree with winkel & RG.
We play winnable systems, not systems that change the odds.
Who claim to change the odds ?
APers ? VBers ?
Prove it else it's BULLSHITE !
Quote from: winkel on Sep 11, 08:27 AM 2017
You said this is rubbish und you won´t follow it.
So why don´t you trash one of your own 3 vdw-Threads?
Are you crazy?
Please read my previous post before attacking me
So if you have a winning system, if you havent changed the odds, what exactly have you changed for it to win?
Quote from: celescliff on Sep 11, 11:43 AM 2017
So if you have a winning system, if you havent changed the odds, what exactly have you changed for it to win?
I didn´t say that this is a winning system. Look at the title!
I think people are frustrated because people have been giving a false impression that vdw can overcome the game
So everyone relax. Breath.
Vdw is not a grail. You can use it to play but can still lose. The next spin doesn't care about vdw
VdW was/is used to illustrate that order must arise in chaos. That's all.
No you can't beat roulette without changing the odds.
Everyone needs to understand this!
If the odds are the same in every spin, and the payouts are the same, then nothing changes. There is no way around it.
Are you going to use progression? You can't. All you'd have is a bunch of bets of different size.
If you think otherwise, explain it.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 11, 12:17 PM 2017
I think people are frustrated because people have been giving a false impression that vdw can overcome the game
So everyone relax. Breath.
Vdw is not a grail. You can use it to play but can still lose. The next spin doesn't care about vdw
You can exchange the name VDW to any shared system or systems idea on this forum. that sentence will always be true.
If you think I don´t know that, then you are wrong.
I just try to form a mutual guess to an educated guess. And the vdW-theorem is the first thing I found, that helps us to make an educated guess to 'EC-bets.
All other is due to our intelligence to handle it. Nothing else.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 11, 01:03 PM 2017
If you think otherwise, explain it.
I think otherwise, but I don´t explain it. because this is not the place for it.
This is: How to play and win with VDW
From what I've seen so far, no one in this forum has a truly realistic strategy to win at roulette. That's why I continue my strategy of betting high to make some profit.
But let's keep the faith and keep trying...
Quote from: Steve on Sep 11, 01:03 PM 2017
No you can't beat roulette without changing the odds.
Everyone needs to understand this!
If the odds are the same in every spin, and the payouts are the same, then nothing changes. There is no way around it.
Are you going to use progression? You can't. All you'd have is a bunch of bets of different size.
If you think otherwise, explain it.
I think otherwise because I've seen the result of more than 1 mechanical system that win consistently with flat bets. I can't explain it, what might have changed idk but I believe the results that I see as true not what others claim.
Not all systems are created equal
You can do well in the game
The biggest thing is exposure
Longer you play the more vulnerable you are to the house edge
It is common sense to play short sessions
Quote from: Andre Chass on Sep 11, 01:20 PM 2017
From what I've seen so far, no one in this forum has a truly realistic strategy to win at roulette. That's why I continue my strategy of betting high to make some profit.
But let's keep the faith and keep trying...
The GUT works flatbet! Unluckily you don´t understand.
Quote from: winkel on Sep 11, 01:48 PM 2017
The GUT works flatbet! Unluckily you don´t understand.
Yes prof works good, but they don't like to study
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 11, 01:41 PM 2017
Not all systems are created equal
You can do well in the game
The biggest thing is exposure
Longer you play the more vulnerable you are to the house edge
It is common sense to play short sessions
This is common sense to people thinking common.
Quote from: nottophammer on Sep 11, 01:59 PM 2017
Yes prof works good, but they don't like to study
You are totally wrong. I am studying a lot of systems that have been suggested in this forum. Do not judge anyone without first knowing. I also don't know where to locate this GUT. Could you give me the link? Please
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 11, 01:41 PM 2017
The biggest thing is exposure
Longer you play the more vulnerable you are to the house edge
It is common sense to play short sessions
Yes, I agree -- I nowadays play various systems mostly on a hit-and-run basis.
Of course, the counter argument to the above is that many individual hit-and-run sessions collectively constitute the long run -- but that is a can of worms that will lead to more yelling and screaming. :twisted: :twisted:
Quote from: winkel on Sep 11, 11:46 AM 2017
I didn´t say that this is a winning system. Look at the title!
Okay. As per your suggestion, I looked at the title of the this thread.
You created the title and it clearly says --
"How to play and win with VdW (from "Random Thoughts")."Contradicting yourself much?
Off topic
Does anyone know where can I find GUT"?
Thanks in advance!
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Sep 11, 03:03 PM 2017
Okay. As per your suggestion, I looked at the title of the this thread.
You created the title and it clearly says -- "How to play and win with VdW (from "Random Thoughts")."
Contradicting yourself much?
Imagine:
How to play and win with the Martingale
Again.. Let's give winkel a break. Many here are trying at least a small advantage against roulette.
I know it's practically impossible to win long term, but...
Rather than criticize winkel, let's at least thank him for the effort.
PS: and winkel is doing a good job to offer something to us.
Quote from: Andre Chass on Sep 11, 03:32 PM 2017
Off topic
Does anyone know where can I find GUT"?
Thanks in advance!
It is in VLS Rouletteforum there is a Thread "The Great Universal Theory - G.U.T"
I just can't find GUT in this forum...
GUT
link:s://:.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=2128.0
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=13756.0
this one has a good dicussion between winkel and azim
Lots of good reading, and IMO a good way to learn about LOT / LOTT (Law of the Third)
Quote from: stringbeanpc on Sep 11, 06:10 PM 2017
GUT
link:s://:.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=2128.0
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=13756.0
this one has a good dicussion between winkel and azim
Lots of good reading, and IMO a good way to learn about LOT / LOTT (Law of the Third)
Thanks a lot!
I appreciate it
Thought I would share this little gem from L.G. Holloway.
Systems
Are there such things as winning systems?
Definitely yes! Then why aren’t there more winning-system players?
There are many, many reasons. They fall by the wayside because of miscalculating the capital, patience, or work involved. Too many players don't want a system; they want a miracle. Their idea of a system is some magic formula that does nothing but fill their pockets with money. Nothing less is considered any good. The professional speculator is just glad to have a system that works, period.
The vast majority of systems lose because they all just give random accuracy predictions. Random = random = random = lose.
Any system can win sometimes. Even random bets wins sometimes. That's not a winning system.
Sorry, I didnt see the board name.
There're 2 important things I focus on when rigorously testing systems -
1. The potential to lose, and
2. The practical aspect to execute the winnable system.
If there's a slightest hint that it might lose itlr I won't bet a dime, no hit&run or short sessions for me, either it's winnable or no. To me #2 is the major barrier besides finding a casino that lets you win regularly.
Did it occurred to you guys, there are APs in any LW registry as well?
Oh wow, a non random event, how about that?
Maybe it can help you predict when you're about to win and about to lose :D
psimoes, to clarify my understanding of the LW registry, is this correct ?
The LW registry for Red/Black is as simple as comparing the color of previous spin to the color of the current spin.
Prev spin = Red & Current Spin = Black Means Lose
Prev spin = Red & Current Spin = Red Means Win
Prev spin = Black & Current Spin = Red Means Lose
Prev spin = Black & Current Spin = Black Means Win
same theory for Low/High or Odd/Even
If my understanding is incorrect, please give an example.
Friend, it was meant as a joke! Forget it, it´s useless.
Not counting with the zero, in the long run the LW registry always ends like this:
If you play ECs, your Ls will equal your Ws.
If you play single dozens, your Ls will be twice as much as your Ws.
If you play double dozens, your Ls will be half as much as your Ws.
And so F on.
In nine spins, playing ECs, both L and W have equal opportunities to show up in the mutual bets.
In nine spins, playing single dozens, the Ls have double the opportunities to show up in the mutual bets.
In nine spins, playing double dozens, the Ws have double the opportinities to show up in the mutual bets.
None of it works.
ok, thank you for the reply
Quote from: psimoes on Sep 12, 07:58 PM 2017
Friend, it was meant as a joke! Forget it, it´s useless.
Not counting with the zero, in the long run the LW registry always ends like this:
If you play ECs, your Ls will equal your Ws.
If you play single dozens, your Ls will be twice as much as your Ws.
If you play double dozens, your Ls will be half as much as your Ws.
And so F on.
In nine spins, playing ECs, both L and W have equal opportunities to show up in the mutual bets.
In nine spins, playing single dozens, the Ls have double the opportunities to show up in the mutual bets.
In nine spins, playing double dozens, the Ws have double the opportinities to show up in the mutual bets.
None of it works.
Thats a common problem. People start thinking and stop before they put all informations and possibilities together.
You can use LW as information with this and any other strategy. you just have to sort it out correctly.
Analysing the LW with the vdW theorem won´t produce any signs of profit, trust me.
Even if you look at it like this:
VdW says two different colours will form one or more APs every 9 spins.
People immediately think of ECs. But they can be any two opposing chances. Two dozens against one, three streets against nine, five double streets against one, for example.
When playing ECs you refrain from betting the mutual bets because any outcome has 50%, of hitting. Playing two dozens against one, during the mutual bets stages, the double dozens will hit twice as much as the single dozen.
You´d think you got an edge, that the application of the vdW will let you increase the accuracy of your predictions, but the truth is the single dozen will still hit when you´re betting the opposites, and the double dozens will still hit when you don´t bet trying to avoid the single dozens. Each time that happens you still lose twice as much as what you win, and you miss valuable opportunities of winning.
One L equals two Ws in value.
You can pick any bet selection, use any mechanical method. The odds still don´t change.
So what is the reason that you still are interested in Roulette?
"It always can hit the other chance!" Thats a very depressive view.
The odds will not change
That is something that is for sure. And it is something you can rely on. So you can do something with it.
Just coming in for a chat.
And checking out how things develop.
There is always a spark.
I had to go back to page #7 to find my last post of handling rules. It is redicoulos how much rubbish is written in between. I really don´t know where I stopped explaining anymore.
Are there some questions to the strategy? Pls no comments to random / non-random or other rubbish.
Quote from: winkel on Sep 08, 06:02 AM 2017
lets take my cluster of 6:
1 1 1 + 1 1 1 = 4 wins
1 1 1 + 1 1 2 = 3 wins 1 loss
1 1 1 + 1 2 1 = 2 wins 1 loss
1 1 1 + 1 2 2 = 2 wins 1 loss total 11 wins + 3 losses + some no AP as trigger
---
1 1 2 + 1 1 1 = 1 loss 1 win
1 1 2 + 1 1 2 = 2 loss
1 1 2 + 1 2 1 = 1 loss
1 1 2 + 1 2 2 = 1 loss total 5 losses 1 win
---
1 2 1 + 1 1 1 = 2 win
1 2 1 + 1 1 2 = 1 win 1 loss
1 2 1 + 1 2 1 = 1 loss
1 2 1 + 1 2 2 = 1 loss total 3 win 3 losses
---
1 2 2 + 1 1 1 = 1 loss 1 win
1 2 2 + 1 1 2 = 1 loss 1 win
1 2 2 + 1 2 1 = 1 loss
1 2 2 + 1 2 2 = 1 loss total 4 losses 2 win
17 wins + 15 losses!!!! and some no AP as Trigger
One bad habit of mine, is browsing over the a forums posts and NOT reading/studying them in full.
Then believing that I have a full understanding of the concept.
There are probably many other members on here who do the same.
It is always good to go back and take a 2nd look.
Regarding VdW, as I understand from spins 1 to 6 there are only two possible AP lengths, being AP1 & AP2
AP1
123
234
345
456
AP2
135
246
In winkel's example above, I believe he is using ONLY the AP length of 1, therefore a win would be three consecutive spins of the same color (if we are using Red/Black)
With respect, I think there is a mistake in the following line.
1 2 2 + 1 1 2 = 1 loss 1 win
I cannot see a winning AP in this line, instead I see two losses
221 - Lose (spins 234)
112 - Lose (spins 456)
This would change the final tally from
17 wins + 15 losses!!!! and some no AP as Trigger
to
16 wins + 16 losses!!!! and some no AP as Trigger
Leaving us again a 50/50 chance, with no edge.
Refer to my attached spreadsheet
Winkel, hope that I am wrong and we can still find an edge. Maybe I am missing something, Please Help.
Thank You
Hi stringbeanpc,
you are right. This is a severe mistake.
I´m sorry for that.
But now I know what I wanted to explain next. Thx.
No apology needed. I'm Looking forward to your next explanation.
Hi stringbeanpc,
I found another win:
1 1 2 + 1 2 1 = 1 loss
1 1 2 is loss
1 2 1 2 1 is a win!
Even if we had just a 50:50 Situation there is one thing we can rely on:
In about 68% we meet an AP int the first 6 spins.
But lets stay at the 50:50 Barrier ( dont´t forget: the Zero is included)
We cannot be sure not to start with one or two losses or some losses in a row.
If we play flatbet every loss needs two winning spins. and that could last a very long time, still we are back to +/- 0.
So our Job is to find a suitable progression.
I prefer the PowerMartingale: (a*2)+1 means 1 3 7 15 .....
The advantage is that for every bet we win 1 unit.
Martingale basic: a*2 means 1 2 4 8 16 ...
We have 1 step more but have the same risc-amount. I think its not worth it.
But if you will bet with big units this could be an alternative.
D'Alembert: a+1 means 1 if loss +1 if loss +1 ..... if win -1 if win -1 til 1
Can take a lot of Time to come back, but offers 1/2 unit per bet.
Fibonacci: 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 (last und last before last)
it needs to wins either WW or WLW to win, but then it wins quite good.
Version A: loss loss loss 13win next 21win
Version B: loss loss loss 13win next 13 win
Version C: loss loss loss 13 win next 8 and win
you should compare these 3 Versions and take some which is suiting your risc-management.
Fibonacci Light (an invention of a friend) 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 9
It starts as a Labouchere 1 1 1 if these 3 are lost then add like Labby first and 3rd
1 .. 1 = 2
.. 1 .. 2 = 3
.. .. 1 .. 3 = 4
.. .. .. 2 .. 4 = 6
and so on
needs three wins
Quotelets take my cluster of 6:
1 1 1 + 1 1 1 = 4 wins
1 1 1 + 1 1 2 = 3 wins 1 loss
1 1 1 + 1 2 1 = 2 wins 1 loss
1 1 1 + 1 2 2 = 2 wins 1 loss total 11 wins + 3 losses + some no AP as trigger
---
1 1 2 + 1 1 1 = 1 loss 1 win
1 1 2 + 1 1 2 = 2 loss
1 1 2 + 1 2 1 = 1 loss
1 1 2 + 1 2 2 = 1 loss total 5 losses 1 win
---
1 2 1 + 1 1 1 = 2 win
1 2 1 + 1 1 2 = 1 win 1 loss
1 2 1 + 1 2 1 = 1 loss
1 2 1 + 1 2 2 = 1 loss total 3 win 3 losses
---
1 2 2 + 1 1 1 = 1 loss 1 win
1 2 2 + 1 1 2 = 1 loss 1 win
1 2 2 + 1 2 1 = 1 loss
1 2 2 + 1 2 2 = 1 loss total 4 losses 2 win
I don´t understand one thing: the clusters of 6 posted above seem more like two chained clusters of 3, because any second cluster of 3 never begins by a 2. In a true series of 6 spins one should find something like this 1 2 1 2 1 2, but in your examples the spin #4 always begins by a 1.
Never mind, I think I got it.
Quote from: winkel on Sep 14, 02:20 PM 2017
Hi stringbeanpc,
I found another win:
1 1 2 + 1 2 1 = 1 loss
1 1 2 is loss
1 2 1 2 1 is a win!
B B R + B R B \
Both of these outcomes are winners, if the vdW is focused on the order of appearance of the colours.
B B R + R B R /
Cheers!
Now, unless spin#4 must always be the same colour as spin#1, otherwise no bet, the AP 2-3-4 becomes a mutual bet since you don't know the colour of the fourth spin before it hits. Ex. spin#4 is never a 2, so a bettable 2-3-4 AP must be 1 1 1 + 1. The 1-3-5 or 2-4-6 APs are bettable because by then we know which colours are 1 and/or 2 in the second cluster of three to bet.
If we avoid such bet when spin#4 is unknown, we have 13 wins and 13 losses.
111 111 - 3W
112 111 - 1W 1L
122 111 - 1W
121 111 - 2W
111 112 - 2W 1L
111 122 - 1W 1L
111 121 - 1W 1L
112 112 - 2L
112 122 - 2L
112 121 - 1W 1L
122 112 - 1L
122 122 - NB
122 121 - NB
121 112 - 1W 1L
121 122 - 1L
121 121 - 1L
13W vs. 13L
I probably forgot one or several combinations, but true clusters of six seem to provide 30 wins against 10 losses!
111 111 - 4W
111 112 - 3W 1L
111 122 - 2W 1L
111 222 - 2W 1L
112 222 - 2W 1L
122 222 - 3W
122 221 - 2W 1L
122 211 - 1W 1L
122 111 - 1W 1L
121 111 - 2W
122 212 - 2W 1L
122 122 - 1L
121 222 - 1W 1L
112 221 - 1W 1L
112 211 - 2L
112 212 - 2L
112 112 - 2L
121 112 - 1W 1L
121 122 - 1L
121 212 - 2W
121 211 - 1W 1L
30W vs. 20L
121 221 - 2L. Any others I missed?
For now, 30W vs. 22L...
There are lots missing... total combinations 32. 2*2*2*2*2. Spin #1 is constant.
Doing this on the phone. Just add spin#1 which is always 1.
Sorry.
11 111
11 112
11 121
11 211
11 122
11 212
11 221
11 222
12 111
12 112
12 121
12 211
12 122
12 212
12 221
12 222
22 111
22 112
22 121
22 211
22 122
22 212
22 221
22 222
21 111
21 112
21 121
21 211
21 122
21 212
21 221
21 222
111 111 - 4W
111 112 - 3W 1L
111 121 - 3W 1L
111 211 - 2W 1L
111 122 - 2W 1L
111 212 - 2W 1L
111 221 - 1W 1L
111 222 - 2W 1L
112 111 - 1W
112 112 - 2L
112 121 - 1W 1L
112 211 - 2L
112 122 - 2L
112 212 - 2L
112 221 - 1W 2L
112 222 - 2W 1L
122 111 - 1W 1L
122 112 - 2L
122 121 - 1L
122 211 - 1W 1L
122 122 - 1L
122 212 - 1W 1L
122 221 - 2W 1L
122 222 - 3W
121 111 - 2W
121 112 - 1W 1L
121 121 - 1L
121 211 - 1W 1L
121 122 - 1L
121 212 - 2W
121 221 - 2L
121 222 - 1W 1L
39W vs. 34L
Winkel, sorry for the hijack but it looks good!
Can someone verify this, or have you all just rushed to the casino? LOL
I don't get it
:-\
Until you do, copy and save my last post before it gets deleted :xd:
Hi psimoes,
112 111 - 1W
112 112 - 2L
112 121 - 1W 1L
112 211 - 2L
112 122 - 2L
112 212 - 2L
112 221 - 1W 2L
112 222 - 2W 1L
-7
If you get a lot of these combinations showing up though - it doesn't look so good...
A.
There are 32 possible combinations. Each one has as many chances of hitting as any other! Playing the above method achieves 39W vs. 32L in the long run. Flat bet.
Just keep on until in plus.
Quote from: psimoes on Sep 15, 10:08 AM 2017
There are 32 possible combinations. Each one has as many chances of hitting as any other!
Exactly - that's what I meant.
A.
111 111 - 4W
111 112 - 3W 1L
111 121 - 3W 1L
111 211 - 2W 1L
111 122 - 2W 1L
111 212 - 2W 1L
111 221 - 1W 1L
111 222 - 2W 1L
Advanced mode? First three spins give you an idea of the future outcomes (as absurd as it might seem). The above group has the most Wins - 19W vs. 7L. Since you always start at spin#1 of each group, it could be advisable to keep playing until you finish the group. Worst that can happen is either brake even or lose to the zero(s).
111 111 - 3W
111 112 - 2W 1L
111 121 - 2W 1L
111 211 - 1W 1L
111 122 - 1W 1L
111 212 - 1W 1L
111 221 - 1L
111 222 - 1W 1L
Safe mode? Wait until 111, start betting on the 4th spin, then...
Quote from: psimoes on Sep 15, 10:18 AM 2017
111 111 - 4W
111 112 - 3W 1L
111 121 - 3W 1L
111 211 - 2W 1L
111 122 - 2W 1L
111 212 - 2W 1L
111 221 - 1W 1L
111 222 - 2W 1L
Advanced mode? First three spins give you an idea of the future outcomes (as absurd as it might seem). The above group has the most Wins - 19W vs. 7L. Since you always start at spin#1 of each group, it could be advisable to keep playing until you finish the group. Worst that can happen is either brake even or lose to the zero(s).
That's Ok if in the advanced mode it goes 1-1-1 - but if it goes 1-1-2 then you are looking at the 8 combo i posted before:
112 111 - 1W
112 112 - 2L
112 121 - 1W 1L
112 211 - 2L
112 122 - 2L
112 212 - 2L
112 221 - 1W 2L
112 222 - 2W 1L
Quote
111 111 - 3W
111 112 - 2W 1L
111 121 - 2W 1L
111 211 - 1W 1L
111 122 - 1W 1L
111 212 - 1W 1L
111 221 - 1L
111 222 - 1W 1L
Safe mode? Wait until 111, start betting on the 4th spin, then...
Seems better. However, you are not guaranteed to win - can still lose with the 7th pattern:
111 221 - 1L
A.
Hello Psimoes,
I checked your first 8 patterns starting with 111 and my results differ from yours for the following 3.
111-122 2W 2L
111-221 1 W 3 L
111-221 2 W 2 L
I am not sure if you were using any stop losses or not?
Cheers
Nick
111 11 - 1W
111 11 - 1W
111 121 - 1W 1L
111 21 - 1W
111 122 - 1L
Safest mode? Wait until 1111, start betting on the 5th spin, then. Go for the early win and STOP. LOL
[/quote]
deleted
111 11 - 1W
111 11 - 1W
111 121 - 1W 1L
111 21 - 1W
111 122 - 1L
Safest mode? Wait until 1111, start betting on the 5th spin, then. Go for the early win and STOP. LOL
deleted
......
Quote
Safest mode? Wait until 1111, start betting on the 5th spin, then. Go for the early win and STOP. LOL
111 11 - 1W
111 121 - 1L
111 21 - 1W
111 122 - 1L
Unfortunately with stop at a win - 2 can win or 2 can lose. There is no advantage here.
Hi Psimoes,
Thanks for clearing up how you got your results.
Will check further.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on Sep 15, 10:35 AM 2017
Hello Psimoes,
I checked your first 8 patterns starting with 111 and my results differ from yours for the following 3.
111-122 2W 2L Bet on 3rd spin for 1-2-3 AP and WIN. Bet on the 4th for 2-3-4 and WIN. Bet on the 5th for 3-4-5 (or 1-3-5) and LOSE. Bet on the 6th spin for 2-4-6 and LOSE.
111-221 1 W 3 L 3rd 1-2-3 W. 4th 2-3-4 L. 5th 1-3-5 L. 6th 4-5-6 L.
111-221 2 W 2 L
I am not sure if you were using any stop losses or not? No stop loss: always 6 spin cycles. If there are no more APs to form, then NO BET.
Cheers
Nick
[/quote]
Quote from: atlantis on Sep 15, 10:51 AM 2017Safest mode? Wait until 1111, start betting on the 5th spin, then. Go for the early win and STOP. LOL
111 11 - 1W
111 121 - 1L
111 21 - 1W
111 122 - 1L
Unfortunately with stop at a win - 2 can win or 2 can lose. There is no advantage here.
Sorry, second possible outcome should be 111 121 - 1L 1W. bet 3-4-5 L, bet 2-4-6 W. So it´s 2 wins, one break even, one loss.
NickMSI you´re right. Looks like the LW for now is 39W vs. 36L. I´m suspecting the final result will be 50/50. Almost fell for it :-\
111 11 - 1W (3-4-5 or 1-3-5) *stop
111 121 - 1L (1-3-5 or 3-4-5) ; 1W (2-4-6) *stop
111 21 - 1W (1-3-5) *stop
111 122 - 1L (1-3-5 or 3-4-5) ; 1L (2-4-6) *stop?
Hi Psimoes - is this not it? 3w - 3L
A.
Quote from: atlantis on Sep 15, 11:12 AM 2017
111 11 - 1W (3-4-5 or 1-3-5) *stop
111 121 - 1L (1-3-5 or 3-4-5) ; 1W (2-4-6) *stop
111 21 - 1W (1-3-5) *stop
111 122 - 1L (1-3-5 or 3-4-5) ; 1L (2-4-6) *stop?
Hi Psimoes - is this not it?
A.
Hi Atlantis you´re right. 50/50 chance. (Gonna kill myself LOL :o)
Unless Winkel has another card to play, the 1 2 instead of RB/BR doesn´t seem to give any real advantage here, it just simplifies the calcs. BUSTED :'(
Quote from: atlantis on Sep 15, 10:32 AM 2017Quote
111 111 - 3W - checked
111 112 - 2W 1L - checked
111 121 - 2W 1L - checked
111 211 - 1W 1L - checked
111 122 - 1W 2L - wins 2-3-4, loses 3-4-5 and 2-4-6
111 212 - 1W 1L - checked
111 221 - 2L - loses 2-3-4 and 4-5-6
111 222 - 1W 1L - checked
Safe mode? Wait until 111, start betting on the 4th spin, then...
Seems better. However, you are not guaranteed to win - can still lose with the 7th pattern:
111 221 - 1L
A.
Revised. In the long run all these outcomes should appear the same number of times (in theory). If each and every time they are played as above, isn´t there an advantage? 11 WINS against 9 LOSSES! It´s the point of this thread...
There´s a pattern here which I think could totally discard the vdW and the waiting: What if 1 just means you picked a colour to bet and won, and 2 means that colour you picked just lost? LW registry. We should then also discard the first 111 since they´re common to all outcomes (they´re all past spins anyway, virtual or not, so let´s get rid of them, right?) and just bet for three spins maximum.
So, if 1 means R:
(111) 111 - 3W - RRR - WWW
(111) 112 - 2W 1L RRB WWL
(111) 121 - 2W 1L - RBR - Won on first R, lost on second, keep betting R and Win. - WLW
(discarded) 211 - 1W 1L - BRR - Lost first R, switch colours, bet B, and W. Wait for end of cycle with No Bets. - LW
122 - 1W 2L - RBR - Won on first R, lost on second, kept same colour and lost on third. - WLL
212 - 1W 1L - Lost on first R, switch colours and bet B and Win, Wait for cycle to finish and don´t bet. - Same as fourth outcome. - Not relevant.
221 - 2L - Lost on first, switch and lost again. NMB till end of cycle. - LL
222 - 2 L - Don´t bother - Same as above. Not relevant.
For the last two outcomes, if LL you decide if you keep betting or not, of course, but two losses in a row should be enough to advise to stop betting and wait until the cycle finishes.
So, pick a colour and bet on it. If you win, bet same colour. Won again? Bet same and stop. Next cycle of three, pick any colour you want and restart.
Lost the first bet? Bet the other colour instead. Won? You just broke even and will not bet for the next and final spin of the cycle of three.
Lost the second bet as well? Tough luck. No more bets, skip that last spin.
Restart.
Playing as above achieves 9 WINS against 7 LOSSES. I think, someone please verify.
Quote from: psimoes on Sep 15, 11:48 AM 2017
Revised. In the long run all these outcomes should appear the same number of times (in theory). If each and every time they are played as above, isn´t there an advantage? 11 WINS against 9 LOSSES! It´s the point of this thread...
111 111 - 3W 0L - wins 2-3-4; 1-3-5 or 3-4-5 ; 4-5-6
111 112 - 2W 1L - wins 2-3-4; 1-3-5; loses 2-4-6 or 4-5-6
111 121 - 2W 1L - wins 2-3-4; loses 1-3-5; wins 2-4-6
111 211 - 1L 1W - loses 2-3-4; wins 1-3-5
111 122 - 1W 2L - wins 2-3-4, loses 3-4-5 and 2-4-6
111 212 - 1L 1W - loses 2-3-4
111 221 - 1L 1L - loses 2-3-4 and 4-5-6
111 222 - 1L 1L 1W - loses 2-3-4 and 1-3-5; wins 4-5-6
So there are 4 occasions where you will start with a W
and 4 occasions where you will start with an L......
10w -10L
No advantage!?
A.
I mean if 10w 10l was the norm we can use progression
Quote from: psimoes on Sep 15, 12:55 PM 2017(111) 111 - 3W - RRR - WWW
(111) 112 - 2W 1L RRB WWL
(111) 121 - 2W 1L - RBR - Won on first R, lost on second, keep betting R and Win. - WLW - Skip the third bet. - WL - That´s it.
(discarded) 211 - 1W 1L - BRR - Lost first R, switch colours, bet B, and W. Wait for end of cycle with No Bets. - LW
122 - 1W 2L - RBR - Won on first R, lost on second, kept same colour and lost on third. - WLL - Skip the third bet. - Same as third outcome. Not relevant.
212 - 1W 1L - Lost on first R, switch colours and bet B and Win, Wait for cycle to finish and don´t bet. - Same as fourth outcome. - Not relevant.
221 - 2L - Lost on first, switch and lost again. NMB till end of cycle. - LL
222 - 2 L - Don´t bother - Same as above. Not relevant.
At least two more outcomes appear scratcheable. The third, 121, and the fifth, 122 - On the third spin you either win or lose, so don´t make that third bet. Win the first, lose the second, skip the third. It´s break even for that cycle.
Net count: 7 WINS against 5 LOSSES. As the number of wins vs. losses gets reduced but the difference of 2 is maintained, the advantage gets relatively bigger. 7W vs 5L has a higher edge than 9 vs 7 and more so than 11 vs 9!
Quote from: atlantis on Sep 15, 01:00 PM 2017
111 111 - 3W 0L - wins 2-3-4; 1-3-5 or 3-4-5 ; 4-5-6
111 112 - 2W 1L - wins 2-3-4; 1-3-5; loses 2-4-6 or 4-5-6
111 121 - 2W 1L - wins 2-3-4; loses 1-3-5; wins 2-4-6
111 211 - 1L 1W - loses 2-3-4; wins 1-3-5
111 122 - 1W 2L - wins 2-3-4, loses 3-4-5 and 2-4-6
111 212 - 1L 1W - loses 2-3-4; wins 1-3-5
111 221 - 2L - loses 2-3-4 and 4-5-6
111 222 - 2L 1W - loses 2-3-4 and 1-3-5; wins 4-5-6
So there are 4 occasions where you will start with a W
and 4 occasions where you will start with an L......
11w - 9L
A.
I think I make a mistake? Seems should be 11w ;9L.....
111 111 - 3W 0L - wins 2-3-4; 1-3-5 or 3-4-5 ; 4-5-6
111 112 - 2W 1L - wins 2-3-4; 1-3-5; loses 2-4-6 or 4-5-6
111 121 - 2W 1L - wins 2-3-4; loses 1-3-5; wins 2-4-6
111 211 - 1L 1W - loses 2-3-4; wins 1-3-5
111 122 - 1W 2L - wins 2-3-4, loses 3-4-5 and 2-4-6
111 212 - 1L 1W - loses 2-3-4; wins 1-3-5
111 221 - 3L - loses 2-3-4; 1-3-5 and 4-5-6
111 222 - 2L 1W - loses 2-3-4 and 1-3-5; wins 4-5-6
No I am right - 11w-11L
A.
Quote from: atlantis on Sep 15, 01:00 PM 2017
111 111 - 3W 0L - wins 2-3-4; 1-3-5 or 3-4-5 ; 4-5-6
111 112 - 2W 1L - wins 2-3-4; 1-3-5; loses 2-4-6 or 4-5-6
111 121 - 2W 1L - wins 2-3-4; loses 1-3-5; wins 2-4-6
111 211 - 1L 1W - loses 2-3-4; wins 1-3-5
111 122 - 1W 2L - wins 2-3-4, loses 3-4-5 and 2-4-6
111 212 - 1L 1W - loses 2-3-4
111 221 - 1L 1L - loses 2-3-4 and 4-5-6
111 222 - 1L 1L 1W - loses 2-3-4 and 1-3-5; wins 4-5-6
So there are 4 occasions where you will start with a W
and 4 occasions where you will start with an L......
10w -10L
No advantage!?
A.
There is an advantage, since it´s a closed cycle and what matters is not how you start, but how you finish.
There´s one game called the Mounty-Hall. If it´s played the right way the more you play the more you win. Doesn´t matter if you lose in the first instances. There´s an edge of 2:1 which will easily be noticed after a few games played.
link:://:.grand-illusions.com/simulator/montysim.htm
Quote from: atlantis on Sep 15, 01:25 PM 2017
111 111 - 3W 0L - wins 2-3-4; 1-3-5 or 3-4-5 ; 4-5-6
111 112 - 2W 1L - wins 2-3-4; 1-3-5; loses 2-4-6 or 4-5-6
111 121 - 2W 1L - wins 2-3-4; loses 1-3-5; wins 2-4-6
111 211 - 1L 1W - loses 2-3-4; wins 1-3-5
111 122 - 1W 2L - wins 2-3-4, loses 3-4-5 and 2-4-6
111 212 - 1L 1W - loses 2-3-4; wins 1-3-5
111 221 - 3L - loses 2-3-4; 1-3-5 and 4-5-6
111 222 - 2L 1W - loses 2-3-4 and 1-3-5; wins 4-5-6
No I am right - 11w-11L
A.
LOL yes you´re right. Thanks!
Quote from: psimoes on Sep 15, 01:20 PM 2017(111) 111 - 3W - RRR - WWW
(111) 112 - 2W 1L RRB WWL
(111) 121 - 2W 1L - RBR - Won on first R, lost on second, keep betting R and Win. - WLW - Skip the third bet. - WL - That´s it.
(discarded) 211 - 1W 1L - BRR - Lost first R, switch colours, bet B, and W. Wait for end of cycle with No Bets. - LW
122 - 1W 2L - RBR - Won on first R, lost on second, kept same colour and lost on third. - WLL - Skip the third bet. - Same as third outcome. Not relevant.
212 - 1W 1L - Lost on first R, switch colours and bet B and Win, Wait for cycle to finish and don´t bet. - Same as fourth outcome. - Not relevant.
221 - 2L - Lost on first, switch and lost again. NMB till end of cycle. - LL
222 - 2 L - Don´t bother - Same as above. Not relevant.
At least two more outcomes appear scratcheable. The third, 121, and the fifth, 122 - On the third spin you either win or lose, so don´t make that third bet. Win the first, lose the second, skip the third. It´s break even for that cycle.
Net count: 7 WINS against 5 LOSSES. As the number of wins vs. losses gets reduced but the difference of 2 is maintained, the advantage gets relatively bigger. 7W vs 5L has a higher edge than 9 vs 7 and more so than 11 vs 9!
Sorry this is nonsense, don´t bother read it.
Personally, I think the solution for this is the same as PHP:
VdW: RBRBR
Part of AP structure: R R R
Not part of structure: B B
Limit: 1 AP in 9 spins
PHP: RBR
Part of Repeat structure: R R
Not part of structure: B
Limit: 1 EC Repeat in 3 spins
Solution: add parallel stream = capture more wins OR increase spins for each part of the structures and look for a cheap investment = capture more spins.
It's claimed that variance can be reduced with Non-Random and a light progression added, but this remains to be properly demonstrated. I don't think Nick's test results were comprehensive enough over a large enough dataset.
Some people can hedge their way to a win: normal+opposite breaking even - AP or repeat winning.
In May I tried it recording baccarat results into 2 columns. (max of 6 in each col)
I bet for VERTICAL vdw and stop if a win in each column or when max reached (6)
"-" = no bet
PP
BB
PB
PB - w (won 2-3-4)
PB w - (won 3-4-5) stop +2
BP
PP
BP - w (won 1-2-3)
PB
BB w - (won 1-3-5) stop +2
BP
BB
PP L - (lost 1-2-3)
BB
PB - L (lost 1-3-5)
BP w L (won 2-4-6; lost 2-4-6 or 4-5-6) stop -2
BP
PP
PB - L (lost 1-2-3)
PB w - (won 2-3-4)
PB - w (won 3-4-5) stop +1
BB
BP
BP w - (won 1-2-3)
BP - w (won 2-3-4) stop +2
BB
PB
PB - w (won 1-2-3)
BP L - (lost 2-3-4)
BP
BB w - (won 4-5-6) stop +1
===
+6
===
A.
Winkel did you try to combine non-random events link tracking VdW for ECs (maybe all three at the same time: RB, OE, HL) along with tracking for a crossing using your G.U.T. bet strategy?
If you find a playable crossing AND a bet option on RED at the same spin for example, you could bet the RED unhit numbers only instead of all unhit or all RED numbers. That would reduce the bet amount and increase the payout.
At all:
Can you imagine that this guy "rouletti" who has stolen my gut and sells it as an e-book publicy aks me to to help him to pimp up his e-book?
At Winkel:
I know your English is bad but my post was pretty easy to understand.
1. I'm not Randy Jones.
2. I did not ask for help, but I offered new ways of thinking towards two strategies you are in.
3. I did it already in my games and it showed nice results. But I don't have a statistically relevant number of games.
I can post also in German on the other forum if its too hard to understand.
Quote from: Rolletti on Sep 16, 03:16 AM 2017
Winkel did you try to combine non-random events link tracking VdW for ECs (maybe all three at the same time: RB, OE, HL) along with tracking for a crossing using your G.U.T. bet strategy?
If you find a playable crossing AND a bet option on RED at the same spin for example, you could bet the RED unhit numbers only instead of all unhit or all RED numbers. That would reduce the bet amount and increase the payout.
Good idea actually.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 16, 03:22 PM 2017
Good idea actually.
Randy Jones already shows this kind of bet on his videos. But just following a "trend" not with vdW
QuoteThere is an advantage, since it´s a closed cycle and what matters is not how you start, but how you finish.
There´s one game called the Mounty-Hall. If it´s played the right way the more you play the more you win. Doesn´t matter if you lose in the first instances. There´s an edge of 2:1 which will easily be noticed after a few games played.
sounds good but just because you label something as <door>roulette should agree...in Monty presenter opens and discards one of the tree doors..roulette does not discard
The point was not about comparing roulette to the monty hall game.
Atlantis noted some of the possible outcomes were early losers.
I thought there were more winning outcomes than losers (which was proven wrong).
You can start any game by losing, but if you got a true edge you'll eventually break even and will end up profiting.
Quote
The point was not about comparing roulette to the monty hall game.
Atlantis noted some of the possible outcomes were early losers.
I thought there were more winning outcomes than losers (which was proven wrong).
You can start any game by losing, but if you got a true edge you'll eventually break even and will end up profiting.
very true
Now that all calmed down I hope I can go on with the winning way of vdW.
It is just 1 step it is not the whole strategy (keep in mind please).
Now that this is still a 50:50 we have to use a progression (choose one of my suggestion or choose your own).
And we have to keep this progression winning in a few steps.
If you have played following the vdw-concept you will have noticed, that the changing from a row to chops (and vice versa) costs a lot of money.
How can we keep this winning?
Todays spins from Wiesbaden Table "Touchbet Raucher" or "TB1R" gives a nice example:
I use my PMG-progression
R
B
R
this is no bet following vdw. But we could imagine that this is going to be a chop-row which leads to vdw 1 3 5.
So we start betting on B
next R we lost result -1
this picture:
RBRR
this gives us the vdw 3 4 5 so we bet on R (3units)
next R and we win result +2
this picture:
RBRRR
still bet on R (1 unit)
R win +3
this picture:
RBRRRR still bet on R (1 unit)
next B loss result. +2
this picture:
RBRRRRB
either no bet or we go straight for the next chop:
bet on R (3 units)
next R win result +5
therefore next bet on B (1 unit)
next R again and a loss result +4
this picture: (cut)
:::::RBRR so bet on R (3 units)
next B and loss res +1
(expl. here stopped a RR we have BRRB we had no doubles so we expect a double following a double (our enemy)
So next bet on B (7 units)
next B and win res. +8
picture: BRRBB
so we have a mutual bet: either 1 2 3 on B or return to double BRRBBRRBBRR
(Sidestep:
- If we bet 123 and lose then we have BRRBBR next bet would be R for next double. If we bet immediately the double: we will lose when 123 appears)
so we bet for 123 (1 unit)
next B we win res. +9
now it is obvious that we bet B again (1 unit)
picture BBBx
next R we lose res. +8
now immediately back to Chop-betting:
picture BR next bet B (3units)
next B win +11
next bet R 1 unit.
here the perm
27 R
08 B
18 R
01 R
05 R
21 R
02 B
23 R
32 R
20 B
02 B
06 B
16 R
10 B EXAMPLE ENDS HERE TRY TO GUESS THE NEXT BETS
09 R
29 B
07 R
30 R
13 B
01 R
11 B
13 B
Prof i'll stick with GUT knowledge
No interest in winning with vdW??
Scared to ask questions.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 22, 04:51 PM 2017
Scared to ask questions.
as long it is not "I don´t understand pls explain"
Ask questions with a specific refer to the post and it is welcome
what about the SECOND PART?
really interested
thanks
Hört sich ja echt spannend an :)
Not very much interest in winning. :ooh:
Quote from: winkel on Sep 28, 03:16 PM 2017
Not very much interest in winning. :ooh:
Prof i win with 0x's you know when you start at spin1 theres 37 coming, you dont know how many will be red, so i'll leave you to it, but GUT is a good learner :thumbsup:
Quote from: winkel on Sep 28, 03:16 PM 2017
Not very much interest in winning. :ooh:
I am interested in VDW but would like to read the second part before posing questions.
I love to see the big picture before getting an idea
A